[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3391-S3399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to express my strong support
for adequately funding federal education initiatives.
``Education is,'' as historian Henry Steele Commager said,
``essential to change, for education creates both new wants and the
ability to satisfy them.'' In this ever-changing world, it is vitally
important that we make sound investments in education. The investments
we make today will count every day in our kids' lives.
[[Page S3392]]
We have a real opportunity to greatly assist our schools by providing
them with additional resources to help them meet the challenges they
face. In my home state of Montana, schools are faced with declining
enrollments, teacher shortages, rising energy costs, and substantial
infrastructure needs. These are real needs that we as a nation can help
address.
Providing additional resources to help schools educate students with
special needs, to recruit the best teachers, to repair or renovate
buildings, and to educate disadvantaged students will greatly help
educators in Montana and around the country concentrate on delivering
the best education they can to our students.
Senator Harkin's ``Leave No Child Behind'' Amendment goes a long way
towards providing for these needs, making comprehensive investments in
education programs from pre-school to college.
This bill will help ensure that all children start school ready to
learn by investing additional resources in Head Start programs. In
Billings, Montana, the Head Start facility is inadequate for the number
of students it serves. In fact, they can only keep their doors open
through April, when most Head Start programs are able to stay open
throughout the school year. Providing additional Head Start funding
will help give more kids in Billings a chance to start school ready to
learn.
This bill also provides for full funding for the Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA). Providing this additional funding, a share
that we have repeatedly promised to states and schools, would free up
local and state education funds that are currently used to cover the
cost of educating students with disabilities. With this additional
federal support, schools and districts will be able to better address
local education priorities.
This bill also substantially increases funding for professional
development opportunities for teachers, allowing them to enhance their
knowledge and skills. Providing teachers with these opportunities will
help teachers help be even better teachers and will let them know that
we care about their personal education needs.
Montana schools and teachers have had to do too much with too little
for too long. I want to make sure I am doing all I can to help Montana
schools overcome their challenges and focus on providing the best
possible education to our students.
The price may seem high. But the price we're paying by not investing
in our education system--by not equipping our students with the skills
they will need to be successful--will be one we'll have to pay year
after year.
There can be no doubt that our education system plays a pivotal role
in establishing our quality of life and the quality of life our
children will enjoy.
John F. Kennedy once said, ``Our progress as a nation can be no
swifter than our progress in education.'' Strengthening our education
system is a responsibility all of us share--as individuals and as a
nation. Let's call on each other to offer our resources as we build a
better, stronger country through our commitment to our education
system.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Specter and
Senator Harkin in sponsoring this important amendment to provide the
National Institutes of Health with the resources it needs to continue
its lifesaving mission. In a historic vote in 1997, the Senate pledged
to double the funding of the NIH over the next five years, and Senator
Specter's amendment represents the fulfillment of that pledge for the
coming fiscal year.
The resources we devote to NIH are a basic investment in a healthy
future for all Americans. Biomedical research supported by NIH has
given us medical miracles undreamed of by previous generations. An
irregular heartbeat once meant a lifetime of disability. This condition
can now be corrected with a pacemaker so small that it can be inserted
under local anesthetic using fiber optic technology. New drugs now
allow many seniors to live a full and active life who once would have
been disabled by the terrible pain of arthritis. Transplants save the
lives of thousands of patients who once would have died of kidney
failure.
Even more astonishing discoveries will be developed in the years to
come. New insights into the genetic basis of disease will allow
treatments to be developed that are custom-made for an individual
patient's genetic signature. Microscopic cameras are now being
developed that can be swallowed by patients to give doctors an accurate
view of the patient's internal organs without the need for risky
surgery.
I'm proud that Massachusetts is leading the way to this remarkable
future. Our state is home to many of the nation's leading biomedical
research institutions and receives more than one out of every ten
dollars that NIH spends on research, or over $1.5 billion last year
alone. NIH grants support essential research all across the
Commonwealth. In Boston, researchers supported by NIH discovered a link
between the immune system and the brain that may lead to better
treatments for diseases like Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis. In
Worcester, NIH funds are helping to build a new center for cancer
research that will become a leading center in finding a cure for that
dread disease.
Investment in research is the foundation on which the state's
thriving biotechnology industry is built. There are more than 250
biotech companies in Massachusetts that give good jobs to thousands of
professionals across the state. These companies are an important
partner in the nation's commitment to promoting the health of all our
citizens.
The future of biomedical research is bright, provided that we
continue our strong national investment in discovery. Senator Specter's
amendment will give NIH the resources it needs to turn the
breakthroughs of today into the cures of tomorrow, and I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request I would
like to propound to see if we get agreement. I believe Senator Domenici
and Senator Conrad are familiar with it and are prepared to proceed on
this basis.
I believe we have all signed off on this.
I ask consent a vote occur in relation to the pending amendment at 3
p.m. today, and the time between now and then be equally divided, and
no other amendments be in order prior to the vote.
I further ask consent that the next four amendments in order to the
substitute be the following in the following order: Specter regarding
NIH, Landrieu regarding defense, Collins regarding health--home health,
and Conrad or designee regarding debt reduction.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, if I could say to the leader
two things. One, we have a slight problem. The fourth amendment will be
a Democratic amendment. We will let you know what it is; we have a
couple we are kicking around--a Democratic amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. This
indicates Conrad or designee amendment regarding debt reduction. Are
you now saying it may not be about debt reduction?
Mr. REID. It may not be. There is a small universe. We will let you
know what it will be.
Mr. LOTT. If I can then modify my consent, that we line up the next
three and we confer further on what the next couple will be after that?
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, again for clarification, I believe that we
have worked it out so we can go back to the original request identified
as Specter on NIH, Landrieu regarding defense, Collins regarding home
health, and Conrad or designee regarding debt reduction.
Of course, these amendments would be subject to the usual rules, and
second-degree or some other agreement as to how they would finally be
disposed.
Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Dorgan has been waiting here
literally
[[Page S3393]]
all afternoon. If we could give him 15 minutes, since he has been
waiting since 12:30 today to speak.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I am not sure exactly who we may be trying
to accommodate. But I feel compelled to want to make some remarks out
of leader time, if I have to. I think the best way to do it is to
extend the time to 3:15, with the time equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I don't mind extending and
dividing it. I only intend to have an opportunity to speak for a
sufficient amount of time. If that accommodates my interest, I ask my
colleague from North Dakota, it is fine with me. If it doesn't, I will
object.
Mr. LOTT. I think it accommodates your interest.
Mr. DORGAN. I am asking the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me say, as I understand it, that we would then have
less than two 2 minutes left. I ask the Senator from North Dakota how
much time he would like.
Mr. REID. How about 3:20?
Mr. CONRAD. And have it equally divided.
Mr. LOTT. Absolutely, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will try to set the example of not
speaking at great length hoping others will follow. I am hoping that
maybe the points I make will be sufficient without it being at great
length.
My colleagues, I haven't spoken about the budget resolution because
we are dealing with a lot of different issues and I have been meeting
with foreign dignitaries and because I have such ultimate confidence in
the managers of this legislation. Senator Domenici doesn't need a
speech from me or help from anybody. But we are here to be helpful.
I want to make two or three points that I am really worried about.
Are we fiddling around here while Rome is beginning to burn?
Today, and during the last couple of days, I have been talking with
people who are watching the stock market. Who knows what causes the
stock market to move around? But I have also been talking to financial
service managers from companies that watch very carefully what is
happening in the country and in the economy. I have been talking to
representatives of manufacturers. They are telling me that the economy
is perhaps in more trouble than any of us want to acknowledge.
I ask the question: OK, what do we do about it? Obviously, one thing
is for the Federal Reserve System to do more. That is one of the places
where I have over the years quite often agreed with Senator Dorgan in
my exasperation sometimes with the Federal Reserve System. I am not an
economist. I wouldn't presume to try to give advice to the Chairman of
the Federal Reserve Board or any others.
But it looks to me as though instead of being overly focused on the
possibility of inflation, we are entering a period of deflation--
deflation. We need the Fed to give us a little more of a hand while we
bring in the cavalry with some additional help.
The only two things to do when you are having sluggishness in the
economy is change monetary policy or change fiscal policy. Give it a
stimulus--i.e., tax relief.
Everybody on both sides of the aisle has been saying: yes; let's do
more. Let's do more now. Let's do it this year. Let's make sure it is
going to have a greater impact in the next 2 or 3 years so the people
will have confidence, and so they can keep more of their money safe and
invest it, and do something about the economy.
We have two choices. The Federal Reserve can do something and/or we
can do something.
I think it is time that we pay a little attention to trying to find a
way to give this tax relief, give this fiscal boost, and do it quickly.
That is my greatest concern and why I feel compelled, as I watch what
is happening even today with the NASDAQ, what is happening with
manufacturing jobs, and what is happening with deflation beginning to
creep up on us, to say I think we have to do more.
Two other points: The pattern is clear. I have been in Congress for
28 years--the same number of years as the distinguished Senator from
New Mexico. Only I spent a few years--16 years--on the other side of
the Capitol.
What we are going to have now is amendment after amendment after
amendment on both sides to add more spending--there is nothing new
about that--and in areas about which I believe very strongly.
Mississippi is a State with agriculture that is very important.
I have always thought of myself as a heavily laden hawk when it comes
to defense. But I also like to think of myself as a cheap, heavily
laden hawk.
We can all say we voted to spend more here or more there. That is the
point.
We are on the verge of everybody saying let's spend more. Let's have
more for defense, education, home health care, NIH, health care in
general, you name it. We get very comfortable when we start raising the
level of spending.
But there is an added problem to it now. One amendment after another
says: Oh, and by the way, we will pay for it by taking hard-working
people's money away from them, bring it to Washington, and keep it here
and decide how it is going to be spent. We are taking from millions of
laborers the bread that they have earned and bringing it up here.
What is new? We have been doing this for years. Spend more, raise
taxes, or in this case reduce, and pretty soon, if we passed every
amendment that has been offered to cut the tax bill, it would be a tax
increase.
What is happening? I hope we will think about that and try to stop
it.
The amendment before us would reduce the tax cut by $448 billion and
increase spending for education, and supposedly accumulate cash. But
the fact is, once again, the tax relief would be reduced and more moved
into education.
I am not going to take a back seat to anybody when it comes to
education. I am the son of a schoolteacher. I went to public schools
all my life. I worked for the University of Mississippi in four
different capacities before I began practicing law.
I believe in public education, and quality education across the
board; not just public education but choice. There is lots of variety
in my area. Some of the best schools are Catholic or Episcopal schools.
I feel strongly about education. But the question is, How much is
enough? How can we do it all at once with a 25-percent increase, as the
Senator from New Mexico was just saying?
The President is asking for an increase. We are going to come back
after the Easter recess, and we are going to go to an education bill
which may be the most bipartisan bill of the year and which is going to
have more spending in it. It is going to be thoughtful. It is going to
have reform, accountability, teacher training, and all the different
components. Yet here we are once again. Oh, yes, we will take out money
for agriculture and from the tax relief. We will take out money for
education.
My colleagues, it is the same thing we have been doing over all of
the years. It is time to stop it.
This is the worst time to be talking about cutting down or
eliminating tax relief.
I spoke this morning to the heads of a couple of major companies--
J.P. Morgan and Dean Witter. I don't know what the current names are
because they are so long. We talked about what we can do. What can we
do? They said we support the tax relief and the sooner the better.
I oppose this amendment because I think if we don't do it, we will
wind up with no tax relief at the worst possible time, and we will wind
up spending the entire surplus. This is a balanced package. It reduces
the debt. It provides increases for defense, education, agriculture,
and it provides tax relief for working Americans.
There is the sign of good government in this budget resolution.
Remember this: We get all overwrought about this. This is just the
whistle at the beginning of the game. This allows us to go forward and
decide how much we are going to put in appropriations for Interior, for
Agriculture, and also the tax relief package. This allows us to just go
forward to give the President a chance to have his program considered.
[[Page S3394]]
I express my support for this package, express my appreciation to
Senator Domenici, and urge the defeat of this amendment and all
amendments that are going to keep trying to increase spending while
cutting tax relief for working Americans.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I remind the majority leader that we
offered, last week, to spend this week on a stimulus package. That is
the offer we made. We said: Look. We believe we ought to spend this
week doing a stimulus package. Don't hold it hostage to a 10-year
budget plan. Let's do it now. Let's provide some lift to this economy
now. And it was rejected on the other side.
Now they come on to the floor, and all of a sudden they are for
taking immediate action on a stimulus package. Where were they on
Friday when we made the offer to spend this week on a stimulus package?
That is what we should have done. That would have been the right course
for the economy. That is what we proposed and they rejected.
Second, on the notion that this President somehow proposed a 25-
percent increase for education, that is not so. The chart of the
chairman of the Budget Committee shows very clearly the President
proposed a 5-percent increase--not a 25-percent increase, a 5-percent
increase. Some of us do not think it is enough to deal with the
education challenge facing this country.
Third, the majority leader is using language very loosely, and that
is a dangerous thing to do. He is suggesting that somebody out here is
talking about a tax increase. No one is talking about a tax increase--
no one. What we are all talking about is significant tax reduction. We
have even agreed on an amount of tax reduction for this year to provide
stimulus. But we do believe that over the 10 years in the future the
President's tax cut is too big; that it threatens to put us back into
deficit; that it threatens to raid the trust funds of Medicare and
Social Security. And that is no longer just a worry; that has become a
reality.
The two amendments that have been adopted out here--to increase
spending on prescription drugs and to increase spending on
agriculture--because of the way they were done, raid the Medicare trust
fund in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008--and it is all in their
numbers, and it is just as clear as it can be. They are into the trust
funds already, exactly what we said would happen.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota is next,
and he is yielded 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would the distinguished Senator yield to
me for 3 minutes?
Mr. CONRAD. I cannot, I say to the Senator, because we have the prior
agreement. Senator Dorgan has been here for 2\1/2\ hours.
Mr. BYRD. But I wanted to ask the majority leader a question while he
was on the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this is a very interesting debate. You
never know when you come to the floor of the Senate whether you are
going to be informed or entertained. And sometimes it is a portion of
both.
I want to respond to a few things that my colleague from New Mexico
said recently. I have great respect for him. He does quite a remarkable
job steering the budget on that side of the aisle.
A couple things. One, this surplus for 10 years, if you listened to
the Senator from New Mexico, and did not know it, you would believe
that surplus was in a bank across the street. Why, that is money that
is already here. That is locked in. We have that surplus handled.
The fact is, that surplus represents estimates by economists, some of
whom cannot remember their home address, but they know what is going to
happen 2, 5, 10 years from now. We know better than that.
My colleague mentioned Alan Greenspan. Ten months ago, Alan Greenspan
increased interest rates 50 basis points. Why? Because he was worried
our economy was growing too fast. Now he is worried we might be heading
toward a recession. He could not see 10 months ahead. We can't see 10
months ahead. I do not know, now maybe there is a Ouija board or tarot
card or palm reader someone got ahold of someplace that gives them more
confidence than the rest of us about what is going to happen in the
future.
I hope we have 10 years of surplus, 10 years of economic growth, but
I sure would not bank on it. We would be smart to be reasonably
conservative in the way we deal with these estimates.
But I want people to understand, when they listen to this debate, it
is as if this surplus is in the bank, and it is not, and those who seem
to allege it is know that it is not. That is No. 1.
No. 2, my colleague said: We are going to collect $27 trillion in the
coming years; we surely can provide a reasonable tax cut out of that.
I do not think he meant to include $27 trillion. Madam President, $9
trillion of that belongs to Social Security and Medicare. The people
who pay that in, pay it in to a trust fund with the expectation that
those who handle it will do so responsibly; that is, not spend it for
other things but to save it in a trust fund.
I do not expect that the Senator, or others, intend to say that $9
trillion is available to be discussed with respect to a tax cut, and
yet they do. It is not right. They know that.
Then the issue of debt. I want to talk about the education issue in a
moment. I would like to ask my colleague from New Mexico a question.
And I would ask my colleague from North Dakota a question.
What I show you is a description of what President Bush sent us from
the Office of Management and Budget. And this is the budget resolution
we have on the floor. On page 5, line 19, it says: Public debt. Public
debt grows from fiscal year 2001--that is the year we are in--$5.5
trillion, to fiscal year 2011, $6.7 trillion.
Let me show what it looks like on a graph.
Now I will ask a question, if someone would come to the floor from
the other side so we can examine why they say you can't pay down
additional debt: If during the 10 or 11 years of their budget
resolution the gross debt is increasing, and if they say it is not, go
to page 5, line 19 of their resolution.
In fiscal year 2011, they say that gross public debt is going to be
$6.7 trillion. Is gross public debt increasing or is it decreasing?
We know the answer to that. No one will come to the floor to talk
about it. I hope my colleague, Senator Conrad, will allow us some time
when perhaps our colleagues are on the floor--the Senator from New
Hampshire, who spoke on this at some length earlier, or the Senator
from New Mexico, who said we can discuss this.
There is not enough debt out there to repay? Maybe we can find some
on page 5 of your resolution. Maybe we ought to start paying a little
on that. Because your debt is increasing.
We will talk more about that when someone will show up to answer a
question. I hope we can have a discussion about that.
I happen to think, when we talk about values, that one of the values
we ought to think important is that if during tougher times you run up
a debt, during better times you ought to try to pay it down. And debt
is not just debt held by the public; it is all debt incurred by the
Federal Government, all of the Federal Government's liabilities. And
this, on page 5 of their own resolution, describes an increase of over
$1.2 trillion in indebtedness or liability by the Federal Government.
Let me turn to this amendment because we are obviously not going to
have a discussion about this at the moment. The question of whether
``Leave No Child Behind'' is a bumper sticker, a political slogan, or
public policy, is what we will answer in this Chamber. Perhaps there
are some who embrace all of that. There are some who certainly would
use it as a bumper sticker; some as a political slogan.
How many are there in this Chamber who will embrace ``Leave No
Children Behind'' as public policy? That is the question. We can all
describe our experience with education. And for those
[[Page S3395]]
who trash our education system--and there are many who do it all the
time--I ask them, how do you think the United States of America came to
this moment in history? How do you think we arrived at this moment?
Might it not have been because we have a universal system of education
in which we have a public education system that says every child in
America--no matter from where they come, no matter how fat or thin the
wallet of their parents, no matter their circumstances in life--can be
whatever their God-given talent allows them to be as children of this
great country? Isn't that perhaps what has given us this opportunity to
arrive at this moment in history?
Do we have challenges in this system of education? You bet we do.
Should we fix them and address them? Absolutely. Can we do that just by
talking? No. No. It takes some money to keep good teachers. It does
take some money to reduce classroom sizes so kids are in a classroom of
15 or 18 students, not 30 or 35, so they are in a school that is well
repaired, not in some sort of a trailer outside the school, in mobiles
that are ill-equipped.
We need to do right by our children. That is what this debate is
about. My colleagues have offered an amendment I intend to support. I
am happy to support it because it moves us in the right direction. You
can't talk about these issues without understanding a requirement to
address them boldly.
It is interesting; all the debate on this is about spending. If you
don't believe that investment in our children is an investment in this
country, then you don't understand anything about the management of
money. There is a difference between spending and investing. When we do
right by our kids, when we strengthen America's schools, we invest in
this country's future. It is just as simple as that.
Some say this is a tradeoff, this is an offset issue; it is between
tax cuts and education. We will have a debate about tax cuts at some
point. I happen to think we should have a tax cut. My colleague just
described our offer to use this week for an immediate tax cut to
provide some fiscal stimulus. The other side didn't want to do that.
Now we have heard they would like some fiscal stimulus. We offered
that, but they didn't want to do that.
We will have a tax cut. We ought to do it in a way that is fair to
all taxpayers. We ought to do it in a manner that gives this economy a
boost. It is not a circumstance where every single dollar is offset to
make a choice between a tax cut or education. There are some of us who
believe that if you add the payroll taxes paid by individuals and the
income taxes paid by individuals and if the top 1 percent of the
American people who have done very well--and God bless them--paid 21
percent of that, and the majority party says, we want to give 43
percent of the tax cuts to them, we say: Wait a second. That is not
something we ought to do. That is not a fair tax cut.
We are going to have that debate at some point. But we ought to be
able to provide a tax cut and also do right by our children and
strengthen America's schools.
The Harkin amendment has $225 billion for education and also $225
billion for debt reduction because he also values not only investing in
our kids by strengthening our schools but addressing this issue as
well.
My hope, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and
also the distinguished chair of the Budget Committee, is that we can
have a good discussion about this issue of debt, the increase in the
gross Federal debt. I don't know that we can have it at this moment
because we are headed towards a vote.
I would like very much to spend some time understanding how one
rationalizes the increase in debt and the increase in liabilities in
the Federal budget as outlined on page 5, line 19, of the majority
budget--an increase of $1.2 trillion in indebtedness--how one
rationalizes that with this notion that we have $27 trillion, according
to them, in income.
We have surpluses that are almost locked in a bank, and they have the
key in their pocket, and they have apparently used a Ouija board to
discern what is going to happen in the coming 10 years. I would like to
understand the rationale of all of this. I think it is time to talk
straight about all of these things in terms of what we have available,
do it conservatively, and then make cautious judgments about what will
strengthen and improve this country. Yes, a tax cut will; I support
one. Yes, paying down the Federal debt will, and I support that. And
yes, investing in America's schools will strengthen this country, and I
believe we ought to do that as well.
Madam President, this will be an instructive debate, and it will be
an opportunity, as we vote, for people to tell us, is ``Leave No Child
Behind'' a bumper sticker or is it real public policy this Senate
embraces.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe I have 5 or 6 minutes
remaining; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. We then go to a vote under the UC, as it exists.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. So Senators should know that that is about the time we
are going to vote. I want to make sure they know that because they have
been waiting.
First of all, I think we ought to be careful about accusing the other
side of speaking loosely. I can see about 10 examples in my mind's eye
of saying they spoke loosely. I choose to say they spoke what they
believed and we speak what we believe. I don't think it is loosely; I
think it is very deliberate, and it is very thoughtful on both sides.
I have a rough estimate, so the American people will know. We are
going to spend $44 billion on education this year, the National
Government. We are going to spend $500 billion over the next decade.
That is half a trillion dollars. So the point of it is, while some may
not think that is enough--and maybe I would even join in saying we
ought to do more--I think we are on a pretty good growth path for
education. And everybody should know that over the next decade we are a
small contributor to education. That is the way it has been. We are
between 6.5 and 7.5 percent of public education. So everybody will know
the dimension of our involvement.
Nonetheless, we are going to spend half a trillion dollars. It will
be growing substantially each year. The point I am trying to make is,
at some point you have to raise the level of the concern for the
taxpayer to an equal level with those who would increase spending from
what is already a very high level of spending. So the American people
should know we are spending a lot on education. It is going up each
year. I just showed how much. And it is going to continue going up.
Should we not at some point in time bring the taxpayer into this and
say: OK, Mr. and Mrs. Hard Working American, would you like to get some
of your tax dollars back or would you like for us to take every program
that sounds good, no matter what the level of spending nationally, and
let's add some more to it, and then we will consider you later on? I
don't think that is what the American taxpayer wants.
In fact, I think they want a fair break out of this, and a fair break
is over the next 10 years giving them back 6.4 percent of what they pay
in in taxes. That is what we are talking about. When we get away from
the big numbers and get into 6 cents out of every dollar, we are
talking about 6 percent, giving 6 percent of the tax taken from the
taxpayer back to the taxpayer over the next decade when we are running
very big surpluses.
Frankly, I will answer one further insinuation. The insinuation is
that the Senator from New Mexico is talking about these surpluses as if
they were there tomorrow. I believe they are as good estimates as we
are ever going to get, and there is a high probability that they are
going to be right. But if the estimates are not any good, then they
ought not to be any good to add spending based on them either.
So if you have something down here where you want to spend half that
tax money on new programs, you ought to be thinking, maybe the tax
surplus is not real. We don't want you to think it is real because we
don't want you to use it for tax dollars, but we would like to use it
for something else.
With that, I yield back any time I might have.
Mr. CONRAD. Is there any time remaining?
[[Page S3396]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is to occur at 3:20 by previous
order.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask that Senator Harkin be given the last 2 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I object. I don't know why we ought to do that. Then I
get 2 minutes, too. You have been arguing for about an hour more than
we have on this amendment. I just think, being fair, we are finished. I
yielded back my time. That is why we still have some time left. I could
have still been talking.
Mr. CONRAD. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
185.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--47
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 185) was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which the amendment was just agreed to. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been entered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Byrd has indicated he would like to
have an exchange, a colloquy. This seems a good time to do it. I might
say also, it would be our hope and intent now that we would go on to
the next amendment. Senator Specter is ready with an amendment on NIH.
So I hope we can--I talked to Senator Daschle about that--go ahead and
proceed with the next amendment that was in order.
I would be glad to respond to a question or a comment Senator Byrd
might have.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his
making possible an inquiry at this point.
As Senators know, I am, I think, the Senator who has had more of a
part in writing the Budget Reform Act than any other Senator who today
serves in the Senate. I believe, with all my heart, that the
reconciliation instruction process was never meant to be used as a
procedure for cutting taxes. It has been my belief, from the beginning,
that the purpose of the reconciliation process is to reduce deficits.
And the process has been useful in that regard over a period of several
years.
I am very concerned that the Senate is about to use the process in a
way for which it was not intended. I think a point of order, if made,
would nail in the precedent that it is quite all right to use the
reconciliation process to cut taxes. So I do not want to do that. If,
and when, that time comes, I prefer to just vote up or down and let the
chips fall where they may.
So I have a couple of questions I wish to ask of the distinguished
majority leader. One would be in light of the fact that we only have, I
believe, about 30 hours remaining.
Mr. REID. That is true.
Mr. BYRD. And I feel sure the majority leader is concerned about this
as much as I am because I have already heard him say some things today
that would lead me to believe that.
My question would be--and he might not want to answer it at this
point--but when are we going to get to the reconciliation vote on this
concurrent resolution on the budget? When are we going to get to it?
When we reach that point, we need some time to debate it. I would like
to speak at least 45 minutes or an hour on that subject.
Our time is being eaten up. I am not complaining about that except to
say we are not going to have enough time to debate the most important
question that will come before us unless we get to that matter soon.
Another question which I wish to propound to the distinguished
majority leader, I think it is very important that the Senate have
before it the President's budget before the Senate votes on final
passage of the concurrent resolution on the budget. I think if we can
see what is in the President's budget, we will see that some programs,
that are very important to Senators on both sides of the aisle, are
probably going to be reduced in order to make way for the tax cut. I
think Senators should know these things before they vote on this
resolution that is before the Senate.
I will not proceed further to make that case. I think it is a solid
case, and I think there is every reason why Senators ought to have the
budget at their fingertips before they cast that final vote. That has
been my hope all along.
The President had earlier indicated, I believe, that he would submit
his budget to the Congress on this past Monday, and then later changed
his mind to say it would be sent up on the 9th, which will be next
Monday.
I must say, earlier I had thought, Mr. Leader, of using some dilatory
tactics in order to put the Senate over to Wednesday. I watched the
debate on the natural gas bill in 1977, at which time two Senators--Mr.
Metzenbaum and Mr. Abourezk--kept this Senate from reaching a decision
13 days and 1 night and still had hundreds of amendments and just as
many dilatory actions available as ever.
I know it can be done. I know how to do it. But it was decided in the
Democratic Caucus that we would not do that. We do, however, still need
to see that budget. I think there is every reason the American people
should know what is in the President's budget before their elected
representatives in this body cast their votes in connection therewith.
Consequently, I ask this question: Would it be possible--this will be
a matter for both leaders, not just the majority leader, but mainly the
majority leader--would it be possible to put this matter over until
next Wednesday, which would allow Monday for the President to send his
budget up to the Congress and then would allow the Senate Tuesday and
Wednesday in which to amend, to debate, and to make a final decision on
the concurrent resolution on the budget? In the meantime a decision
could be made with respect to the reconciliation resolution as well. It
might very well be that a time agreement could be worked out, and the
majority leader has been interested in that. I have been interested in
it. Mr. Gramm and Mr. Domenici have expressed some interest in it. Mr.
Nickles has expressed interest, and others.
I think there is every good reason why it might be wise to do that. A
unanimous consent request hase been under consideration. The majority
leader discussed this again with me briefly last night at the time of
the reception the Senate was having in honor of the spouses of the
Senators. Would it be possible to delay final passage of the budget
resolution until next Wednesday? I know it would inconvenience some
Senators. But what is more important? The inconvenience to the
Senators, or wisdom and the proper judgment when it comes to casting
our votes for those whom we represent?
[[Page S3397]]
I don't think there is a Senator here who would disagree with my
statement that, yes, there will be inconveniences, perhaps some trips
would have to be canceled, but that is all in a day's work. We get paid
for our work. We have a responsibility to our people. Perhaps there
will be no more important vote that will be cast by the Senate than the
vote on this concurrent budget resolution and the vote with respect to
the reconciliation process.
That ends my question.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe there were actually several ideas
or questions propounded there. I will try to respond as directly and as
briefly to them as I can so we can go forward with the next amendment
that is pending.
First of all, as to when to take up the issue of reconciliation and
the process for giving working people tax relief to be able to keep a
little bit more of their money at home, I think clearly it needs to
come relatively shortly, I assume tomorrow, in whatever form it might
be so that there will be ample time to discuss it fully. I know that
Senators on both sides of the aisle will want to be heard on that.
I must say that if we start down this trail of spending all the
money, there won't be anything left for tax relief anyway so we won't
need this reconciliation process. I think clearly to have tax cut in
reconciliation is something that we would like to have considered and
would be prepared to act on it. But as the Senator knows, we would be
willing to consider doing it another way, doing it the way it was done
even back in the 1980s. We have offered an idea, a unanimous consent
agreement to Senator Byrd, and I have discussed it with Senator
Daschle. Senators on this side have looked at that. I thought perhaps
we could get something worked out on that, and we could get that done.
We would have to consult with the chairman of the Finance Committee
and the ranking member on the Finance Committee, make sure everybody
understood how that would work and make sure that it would give us some
of the important benefits that reconciliation gives you, even though it
wouldn't do it that way.
We will be glad to continue to work with you and with others on the
possibility of doing it through a unanimous consent agreement. I have
discussed this with Senator Domenici and with Senator Grassley. They
are interested, willing to work on it. They just want to make sure they
know what is in it, and I think everybody on both sides wants to do
that.
As far as the President's budget, we have the outlines of the main
categories that the President is suggesting. I guess if we waited later
on, we would get line by line by line. I don't think that is what a
budget resolution does. A budget resolution sets the broad categories
and then we go forward. Then in the Appropriations Committee, for
instance, they decide how much they are going to put in there for
Interior or Transportation. I don't believe the President dictates
that. We have acted before when we didn't have the President's budget.
As far as the idea of postponing it, there would be two or three
problems with that. We had not indicated that we were thinking about
doing that. We would have to check on both sides with 100 Senators to
make sure that their schedules could be changed to that effect. I
suspect there would be a lot of resistance to it. We would have to
check with both sides of the aisle on that. Worst of all, in my
opinion, we need to move forward. We need to move forward with this
budget resolution--good, bad, ugly. We ought to move it on into
conference and see if we can get an agreement there and then come back
and vote on it so we can get on with the substantive business. This
just gives us the outlines of how we can proceed and then we get into
the details: What we do on Medicare, what we do on defense, and what we
do on tax policy.
I think we ought to go ahead. I spoke earlier about my concern about
the economy and the need for us to get this process on down the road so
that we can be looking at taking some action on tax policy and on
substantive issues, too.
I see Senator Domenici. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I don't
want to try to respond to all of this. Some of it being in his
jurisdiction, would he like to comment on this, too?
Mr. DOMENICI. I surely don't want to use much time. You have answered
with the authority of the majority leader. I just wanted to say to you,
Mr. Leader, and to you, Senator Byrd, I never in my wildest dreams
thought we would finish this budget resolution without your spending an
hour on a subject you think is most important; namely, reconciliation.
We have already spent a lot of hours debating. Frankly, in my opinion,
although the debates were luxurious, I think it would have served us
well if you would have already taken an hour and I would have taken an
hour and Senator Conrad taken an hour and we discussed reconciliation.
I don't intend to get finished without that hour of debate about what
it is all about and what it means taking place. As soon as we can, I
would be for working it out. Our leader thinks we should work it out on
an issue that is formulated before the Senate.
I do want to comment, since you have indicated two things. One, we
should have the President's budget first. That is OK. That is a good
wish. I would suggest that when we had a new President named Bill
Clinton, we didn't have a budget before we approved the budget
resolution, including the conference report on the budget resolution.
Then we got a budget. I think there is precedent for a new President
for us to proceed.
Secondly, I think you did do more than, as much as anyone present
here, of course, in drafting this 25-year old Budget Impoundment Act.
Frankly, you have one version about reconciliation that the Senator
from New Mexico, who has now used your product you developed with
others--I have used it as chairman or ranking member or member for 25
years. So while you drew it, I have watched it implemented.
I will present to the Senate my strong conviction that there is
nothing in this act that precludes using reconciliation for a tax
decrease bill. I just wanted to make sure I amplified to that extent.
Mr. BYRD. I don't want to take a lot of time. Let me just say this:
We can argue back and forth as to what has been done in the past. I
think we have to deal with what is in the present. We have here ``A
Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' My problem with this is that it is kind
of a peekaboo budget. You see just a little of the budget. But what I
see is disturbing. For example, with respect to the research in fossil
fuel, that is going to be cut. That is important to the energy
resources of this Nation, particularly at this time.
Now we have the clean coal technology program, for which the
President has said he supports a $2 billion increase. That is well and
good. But the problem is, as I look through this peekaboo budget, I
find that much of the money he is going to put into clean coal
technology is going to come out of fossil fuel research. That is
important to coal, oil, and gas. That is just one thing of which I got
a little glimpse. I think we will find the word ``redirect'' in this
blueprint a number of times.
I noted in the Washington Post of Sunday, April 1, that the Community
Policing Service Program, COPS, would be cut by 13 percent, from $1
billion to about $850 million. I noted also in the New York Times--I
believe, of yesterday--well, I don't seem to have it at my fingertips,
but some programs are going to be cut. I think Senators should know
what programs are proposed to be cut in the President's budget before
they vote on final passage of this concurrent resolution on the budget
before us.
I am going to take my seat soon, but for these reasons, which could
be debated at considerable length, I hope it will be possible to have
the President's budget before we take the final plunge on the
concurrent resolution on the budget. It seems to me it isn't too much
to ask that that final action--perhaps the final 10 hours, if it could
be worked out that way--be put over until next Tuesday or Wednesday.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD. If I have the time, yes.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator, I appreciate very much directing his
attention to this. I think we would be better off putting this off
until we got back from the break. I think we have 30 hours left.
Everybody is trying to finish this bill by tomorrow. In the back
[[Page S3398]]
room, I say to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, we
have over 120 amendments just on our side. You know, unless we have
some time to work this out, there is going to be a big vote-athon. We
need to do this with wisdom and discretion and have a document before
making a decision.
I think the Senator is right on the ball, right in the direct line in
which we should be going. This is so important, I would be willing to
cancel what I have next week in Nevada and do this. But if people are
unwilling to do that, let's do it after we come back, set it at a
certain time and have a unanimous consent agreement that we can
complete this thing in a matter of a day or two. People would feel
better about it. We can sift through the 120 amendments and get to what
really needs to be done.
Senator Conrad has done a wonderful job of managing this bill. I
don't know of anybody who has ever managed a bill better than he has.
But with these time constraints and big things such as debt reduction,
defense, reconciliation, his hands are tied to manage this bill
properly. I certainly think the Senator from West Virginia is headed in
the right direction.
Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield to me for a moment, and I
understand the ranking member wants to speak. What I have here is also
a peekaboo budget, but it is not President Bush's, it is President
Clinton's. It is a peekaboo budget, borrowing your expression. It is
``A Vision of Change for America,'' but it is not a budget.
Mr. BYRD. That is right.
Mr. DOMENICI. This was sent up here on February 17, and in a
marvelous show of support for the new President, before any budget was
forthcoming, a budget resolution was adopted based on this peekaboo
budget.
Mr. BYRD. That is a peekaboo budget.
Mr. DOMENICI. It went to conference for him, and it came back as a
conferred-upon bill. So we are kind of used to looking at what you all
do, and then when you are doing something really borderline
spectacular, we say we would like to be a mimic. You did it in such a
great fashion for him, we wanted to do a little bit for President Bush.
Mr. BYRD. I wish the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee,
however, had had a markup in the committee, as was the case when that
peekaboo budget was sent up here in 1993.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator will admit, will he not, that the Budget
Committee did, in that instance, 1993, have a markup in the committee
and then reported that measure out of the committee with a report? And
I assume the minority was allowed to publish its views. Would the
Senator respond? Was that not the case with that 1993 peekaboo budget?
Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed, it was.
Mr. BYRD. In the case of that 1993 peekaboo budget, did the
committee, in that instance, report out a bill? Did it mark up the
bill?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it did.
Mr. BYRD. If it did, why doesn't the Senator, who admires that role
model, wish to have a markup in the committee and report out a
concurrent resolution on this budget?
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I tried to explain the difference. You had the
luxury of a majority here in the Senate. In fact, you had three votes
more than a majority. We went in the Budget Committee not even stephen.
Everybody already made up their minds. You had a majority of Democrats
willing to vote out a Presidential budget when Republicans didn't want
it. So it is the same thing I had, except it turns out 11-11, an equal
number. So there is a very big difference.
Mr. BYRD. There is a difference, but, with all due respect, that is
no reason not to have a markup. Just because the people saw fit to make
it 50/50 in this Senate, that is no reason to avoid having a markup in
committee. We have a responsibility to the people who send us here to
have a markup in the committee.
The point I am trying to make is that we ought to see the President's
budget. It would not be asking too much of all of us, I don't think, to
hold over until next Tuesday or Wednesday to complete action on this
concurrent resolution on the budget. Let us see the President's budget.
While I have the floor--and then I will sit down--I have the New York
Times of Wednesday, April 4. I will read the headline: ``Bush Budget on
Health Care Would Cut Aid to Uninsured.''
That is one example of why I think the Senate ought to have the
President's budget. We don't know what is in it.
Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD. I am glad to yield.
Mr. CONRAD. Isn't it true that while President Clinton had not
submitted a full budget, he had submitted sufficient detail so the cost
of his budget proposals could be estimated by the Committee on the
Budget, the CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and so the Senate,
acting in 1993, had all of the reestimates done that told us the cost
of his proposal?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. CONRAD. And is it not true as well that President Bush has not
submitted sufficient detail for the Congressional Budget Office or the
Joint Committee on Taxation to do the reestimates that were done on the
previous President's budget, so we do not have those reestimates; isn't
that true?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is preeminently correct.
Mr. CONRAD. I will go on, if I can, when we look at the level of
detail that has been provided by President Bush versus President
Clinton, there is a very stark and glaring set of differences. For
example, the Clinton document had tables that provided year-by-year
budget numbers for 68 specific proposals to reduce discretionary
spending.
The tables also included the year-by-year numbers for 90 specific
proposals to cut mandatory spending.
The budget also provided year-by-year detail for proposed increases
in spending.
The Bush budget does not provide any year-by-year numbers for
specific proposed changes in discretionary spending; is that not the
case?
Mr. BYRD. Oh, absolutely; no question about it; absolutely.
Mr. CONRAD. So to compare 1993 to this year does not really stack up,
does not hold up under much scrutiny because, as the Senator from West
Virginia has made so clear, we had full reestimates then of the cost of
the President's tax-and-spending proposals, sufficient detail for the
Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to tell
us what those costs were. We do not have it now. And we had a full
Budget Committee markup then. We do not have any Budget Committee
markup now.
The fact is, we do not have sufficient detail from the President to
have the kind of objective independent analysis done to inform the
Senate of the cost of the President's tax-and-spending proposals.
Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. Moreover, that was a budget for 5 years. That
was a 5-year plan in 1993. This is a 10-year plan. Additionally, the
resolution was used in that instance to reduce deficits, not to
increase them.
Finally, my good friend from New Mexico speaks of that 1993 budget as
a role model. Not one of the Senators on that side of the aisle voted
for it. Not one Republican in the House voted for it.
What did it do? It put the Nation on the course for reduction of the
deficits and for the accumulation of huge projected surpluses. Whether
they ever materialize or not is another question. But what are we so
afraid of? Why is this Senate afraid to see the President's budget?
Mr. CONRAD. We were promised the President's budget, were we not? We
were promised it was going to be here on April 2 before we took up a
budget resolution on the floor. And presto disto, the next thing we
know, there is no budget until April 9 when we have completed action.
It is a very unusual circumstance.
If we are going to be fair and objective about comparing 1993 to now,
we will see there are very significant differences. Most significant,
we have had no budget markup in the committee, and there was sufficient
detail on what President Clinton sent us that the Congressional Budget
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation were able to give us an
objective independent analysis of the cost of the President's spending-
and-tax proposals which we do not have here. We do not have them.
[[Page S3399]]
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able majority leader for
his courtesy in calling attention to the inquiry I had previously
indicated I wanted to make, and for his listening to it. I am sure he
will give some consideration to it. I hope he will. And I hope all
Senators will be willing to consider the request to go over until next
Tuesday or Wednesday so that we might have the benefit of having the
information that is in the President's budget.
I am sure it is not very far away. It is probably on the printing
presses within three blocks of this Chamber right now. If they plan to
have it up here next Monday, it is available somewhere right now.
I thank the majority leader for entertaining my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania is going to go next. I did not want to keep burdening
Senator Byrd with my statements. He has made his. I want to make mine.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the introduction of
the President's revenue proposals by the Joint Committee on Taxation,
March 8, 1993.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Introduction
This pamphlet, prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee
on Taxation, provides a summary of the revenue provisions
included in the President's budget proposal, as submitted to
the Congress on February 17, 1993.
The provisions summarized in this pamphlet are those
revenue proposals contained in the Department of the Treasury
document, Summary of the Administration's Revenue Proposals,
February 1993 (``Treasury document''). The pamphlet also
summarizes three other revenue proposals included in the
Office of Management and Budget document, A Vision of Change
for America, February 17, 1993 (``OMB document''), that would
amend the Internal Revenue Code: taxation of social security
benefits; increase of inland waterways fuel excise tax; and
use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund amounts for
administrative expenses.
The pamphlet descriptions of the President's proposals are
taken without modification from the Treasury document and the
OMB document. The pamphlet summary description includes
present law and a reference to any recent prior Congressional
action on the topic and whether the proposal (or a similar
proposal) was included in recent budget proposals (fiscal
years 1990-1993). Part I of the pamphlet summarizes the
revenue-reduction proposals from the Treasury document; Part
II summarizes the revenue-raising proposals from the Treasury
document; and Part III summarizes three additional revenue
proposals from the OMB document.
The Treasury document's introductory statement indicates
that ``[t]he descriptions included in this report are not
intended to be final. Many of the proposals will be revised
in the process of finalizing the Administration's fiscal year
1994 Budget. The descriptions are also not intended to be
comprehensive. Numerous details, such as rules relating to
the prevention of abusive transactions and the limitation of
tax benefits consistent with the principles of the proposals,
will be provided in connection with the presentation of the
Budget and upon submission of legislation to implement the
Administration's plan.''
Further, the Treasury document states that ``[i]n addition
to the proposals summarized in this report, the
Administration also supports initiatives to promote sensible
and equitable administration of the internal revenue laws.
These include simplification, good governance and technical
correction proposals.''
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is the Joint Committee's
introduction on President Clinton's tax package that was considered,
voted on, passed, went to conference with the House and passed, and
this is all they could say about what the President submitted:
The Treasury document's introductory statement indicates
that ``[t]he descriptions included in this report are not
intended to be final. Many of the proposals will be revised
in the process of finalizing the Administration's fiscal year
1994 Budget. The descriptions are also not intended to be
comprehensive. Numerous details, such as . . . limitation of
tax benefits consistent with the principles of the proposals,
will be provided in--
And it goes on.
I want everybody to know, according to the tax Web site, no tax
revenue tables were available with reference to President Clinton's
budget until way past the time the budget resolution was considered. As
a matter of fact, the first tax tables were not made available to the
Ways and Means Committee until May 4 of 1993, the second tables on June
17, 1993, and we had already produced the budget resolution in both
Houses, gone to conference, and adopted it.
I do not care to go on forever. I believe we ought to treat President
Bush, as well as Republicans and Members of the Senate, as President
Clinton was treated when he was a so-called brand new President.
We will proceed, and I want the Record to show, and I will put the
letter in tomorrow, that every member of the Budget Committee on the
Republican side asked the chairman, this chairman, not to consider
markup because they said it would not yield any fruitful results. While
that is my decision, I want everybody to know I did not make it
singularly. I had a pretty good backing from Republicans who did not
think it would amount to anything other than long, protracted debates
and nothing positive would be accomplished.
Before we proceed and I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, I was
asked by the majority leader to propose what I assume is a usual
consent request.
____________________